Tell me something...

[Ekserb]

If some hot chick wants to go fight for stability in Iraq I really don't think it's fair to say, "No sweetie, you'd be too much of a distraction to the other soldiers." This isn't about political correctness, this is about a sheer violation of the rights of half of our voting citizens.

I mean, you may as well take this further and argue that women should be prevented from holding governmental positions because they would be too distracting to all the male law-makers around them. I'm sure many-a-congressman is too busy staring at the ass or tits of the congresswoman in front of him to be able to properly weigh the pros and cons of voting for or against some bill. And then our whole country suffers.

What would you think of a separate all-female military? Would you support something like that?

It's not the hot chicks that are the problem. And it's not that the women are a "distraction." It's just that the vast majority of men will put themselves at further risk when a woman is in trouble, and that's not what being part of a team is about.

Look, I don't expect you to understand. It's easy to sit back here in the rear and talk about how important it is to be PC and let the women do the same jobs the men do, but when you are being shot at nothing matters but the ability of your fellow soldier to do his job and do it better than the enemy is doing his.

The media plays into this as well. When that female truck driver took a wrong turn (don't get me started) and ended up getting kidnapped by Iraqi insurgents a few years ago, the media made a huge story about the female soldier and how terrible it was that she may have been killed or tortured. Fuck her. She's a soldier and we shouldn't give any more weight to that just because she's a woman.

This seems contradictory on my part, but as long as we're going to have them in the armed forces, they need to be nothing more than a soldier and that's all. Everybody wears green and everybody is the same. Everybody should meet the same standards and cut their hair the same and wear the same uniforms. As it is, just about every military standard for appearance is different based on gender.

Now I like you, but when it comes to this topic, you're not going to change my mind unless you have worn a uniform and stood a post in defense of your country.

(Who am I kidding? It's not like anyone is going to change my mind, anyhow.)

 

[monique1971]

What she said.

I don't usually think of "equal" as a synonym for "the same," so I looked it up. I'll be damned. One learns something new every day. It still sounds odd to my ear, but whatever, I get the point.

 

[monique1971]

To my intense dismay, I actually agree with Ekserb (to the extent that I care about this issue, which is to say, not much -- where both women's rights and the effectiveness of today's military are concerned I think there are some more urgent issues). But for the sake of discussion, what about the Soviet forces during WWII? Women were in combat there, and seem to have performed well, and I would think that the massive losses the Soviets suffered had alot more to do with their opponents, lack of adequate medical care, etc., than they did with having women in combat positions.

I'm not an expert on this, just throwing out a thought.

 

[ShinigamiSama]

To my intense dismay, I actually agree with Ekserb (to the extent that I care about this issue, which is to say, not much -- where both women's rights and the effectiveness of today's military are concerned I think there are some more urgent issues). But for the sake of discussion, what about the Soviet forces during WWII? Women were in combat there, and seem to have performed well, and I would think that the massive losses the Soviets suffered had alot more to do with their opponents, lack of adequate medical care, etc., than they did with having women in combat positions.

I'm not an expert on this, just throwing out a thought.

they were preforming just as because stalin killed whom ever he pleased
countrymen included
serve in the millitary and if you fuck up, as long as you're a grunt no-one notices and your family has a chance of living


as for their losses
scorched earth policy anyone?
plus again
stalin just didn't care he just wanted a blood bath

or am I confusing world wars here?

 

[Lorali82]

It's not the hot chicks that are the problem. And it's not that the women are a "distraction." It's just that the vast majority of men will put themselves at further risk when a woman is in trouble, and that's not what being part of a team is about.

Look, I don't expect you to understand. It's easy to sit back here in the rear and talk about how important it is to be PC and let the women do the same jobs the men do, but when you are being shot at nothing matters but the ability of your fellow soldier to do his job and do it better than the enemy is doing his.

The media plays into this as well. When that female truck driver took a wrong turn (don't get me started) and ended up getting kidnapped by Iraqi insurgents a few years ago, the media made a huge story about the female soldier and how terrible it was that she may have been killed or tortured. Fuck her. She's a soldier and we shouldn't give any more weight to that just because she's a woman.

This seems contradictory on my part, but as long as we're going to have them in the armed forces, they need to be nothing more than a soldier and that's all. Everybody wears green and everybody is the same. Everybody should meet the same standards and cut their hair the same and wear the same uniforms. As it is, just about every military standard for appearance is different based on gender.

Now I like you, but when it comes to this topic, you're not going to change my mind unless you have worn a uniform and stood a post in defense of your country.

(Who am I kidding? It's not like anyone is going to change my mind, anyhow.)

Nope, and it probably won't ever happen.

But I would like to know I have a shot at it if I want to.

And I'm not debating your argument regarding leveling the playing field for all soldiers, I totally agree with you there. As I said earlier, make one set of physical requirements (fine if you want to make them whatever they are nowadays for enlisting men) and give me a chance to meet them. It's not my fault I have a vagina. If I have what it takes to enlist, I should be able to enlist. (Course I've never been able to do a single pull-up so it would be quite a long road ahead of me.)

And maybe they should separate units by sex or something if what you are describing really is an issue. The bottom line is that I live here, I pay my taxes, I vote. I get to defend my country if I want to.

 

[caravan70]

If some hot chick wants to go fight for stability in Iraq I really don't think it's fair to say, "No sweetie, you'd be too much of a distraction to the other soldiers." This isn't about political correctness, this is about a sheer violation of the rights of half of our voting citizens.

I mean, you may as well take this further and argue that women should be prevented from holding governmental positions because they would be too distracting to all the male law-makers around them. I'm sure many-a-congressman is too busy staring at the ass or tits of the congresswoman in front of him to be able to properly weigh the pros and cons of voting for or against some bill. And then our whole country suffers.

What would you think of a separate all-female military? Would you support something like that?

The distraction argument, of course, is also used by those who oppose the presence of gays in the military. It's a failure in that case as well, IMHO.

I agree that there should be unisex standards in place for every position in the military. If you meet them, you should be able to serve in that position regardless of gender.

After all... shouldn't our military reflect the values it's fighting for? If our society is worth defending, surely its fighting force should exemplify its best attributes.

It's worth noting that inasmuch as a majority of those who have served in the U.S. military over the years haven't been required to take part in active combat, the armed forces have had more impact on our society as an incubator of change than as a defensive outfit. Harry Truman's integration of the armed forces was a powerful instrument for change in that many men who'd never associated with anyone of another race were forced to live and train alongside people of different origins. It can also be argued that the military has been a great leveler along class lines as well, promoting upward mobility and mutual class consciousness. These are also important, if subsidiary, considerations that strengthen the argument for an open military.

 

[Ekserb]

To my intense dismay, I actually agree with Ekserb (to the extent that I care about this issue, which is to say, not much -- where both women's rights and the effectiveness of today's military are concerned I think there are some more urgent issues). But for the sake of discussion, what about the Soviet forces during WWII? Women were in combat there, and seem to have performed well, and I would think that the massive losses the Soviets suffered had alot more to do with their opponents, lack of adequate medical care, etc., than they did with having women in combat positions.

I'm not an expert on this, just throwing out a thought.

I think that stemmed more from the Soviet ideal of a communist society rather than any women's liberation movement. Also, they Soviet Army suffered such unbelievable losses that I wouldn't rule out the idea that they were recruiting everyone old enough to hold a rifle to replenish the front lines.

It's hard to calculate the causes of deaths in wars past. The war in Iraq has a current total of about 3000 Americans dead over the course of the past 3-1/2 years. Those numbers are very low in comparison to prior conflicts and because of that it's easy to ascertain the effects of lots of different parameters.

When we go back to WWII, for example, there were over 400,000 American deaths over the course of the four years we were involved in the war. During the Civil War, over 50,000 men died during the three day battle of Gettysburg alone, making it the single deadliest battle ever fought by Americans.

When we look at those sheer numbers it's hard to tell if the fact that mostly men served in WWII was a factor is anyone living or dying. During the Gettysburg battle there were in fact young boys pulling a lot of triggers. Whose to say the boys were a factor in the death toll?

But today the military commanders know exactly what it takes to form a tight, well-oiled machine and until we make a decision one way or the other - women are totally equal and deserve to be fighting and dying on the front lines or they can't handle the requirements and need to be pulled back to serve as logistical support in the rear - we are going to have the occasional incident where one female soldier gets into trouble and a bunch of guys get killed because they were trying to rescue her from peril.

 

[Ekserb]

Nope, and it probably won't ever happen.

But I would like to know I have a shot at it if I want to.

And I'm not debating your argument regarding leveling the playing field for all soldiers, I totally agree with you there. As I said earlier, make one set of physical requirements (fine if you want to make them whatever they are nowadays for enlisting men) and give me a chance to meet them. It's not my fault I have a vagina. If I have what it takes to enlist, I should be able to enlist. (Course I've never been able to do a single pull-up so it would be quite a long road ahead of me.)

And maybe they should separate units by sex or something if what you are describing really is an issue. The bottom line is that I live here, I pay my taxes, I vote. I get to defend my country if I want to.

Agreed. If you can pass the physical requirements and are as good at killing the enemy as any other soldier, by all means demonstrate it. Don't expect any additional pity just because you're a girl.

 

[Ekserb]

It's worth noting that inasmuch as a majority of those who have served in the U.S. military over the years haven't been required to take part in active combat, the armed forces have had more impact on our society as an incubator of change than as a defensive outfit. Harry Truman's integration of the armed forces was a powerful instrument for change in that many men who'd never associated with anyone of another race were forced to live and train alongside people of different origins. It can also be argued that the military has been a great leveler along class lines as well, promoting upward mobility and mutual class consciousness. These are also important, if subsidiary, considerations that strengthen the argument for an open military.

I absolutely agree with this, except the last bit about the class lines. That was once very true, but nowadays there are almost no upper-class citizens sending their sons off to defend this country. Almost none of our Congressmen have children in the military (although there are some exceptions) and I can't think of a single CEO with sons or daughters fighting overseas.

It used to be a badge of honor to have served in the military and this was greatly desired for leadership roles in the corporate world as well as public service. As the older members of congress retire or die, we are left with more and more elected leaders with no military service whatsoever, and these are the same people who are deciding how our boys are paid and what equipment we buy for them to fight with.

I'd like to see a system kind of like Israel has, with two years of military service for every able-bodied citizen. It must be quite a thing to know that everybody you meet and work with has served in defense of your country.

 

[Lorali82]

Agreed. If you can pass the physical requirements and are as good at killing the enemy as any other soldier, by all means demonstrate it. Don't expect any additional pity just because you're a girl.

Dude, absolutely not.

As an aside, how did you feel about the motto changing to "An Army of One" supposedly to appeal to the individual? What did it used to be again? I forget, but didn't it adhere to a more collectivist philosophy?

 

[monique1971]

I think that stemmed more from the Soviet ideal of a communist society rather than any women's liberation movement. Also, they Soviet Army suffered such unbelievable losses that I wouldn't rule out the idea that they were recruiting everyone old enough to hold a rifle to replenish the front lines.

Yes, those are the reasons why women were fighting. I didn't claim it had anything to with feminism, and yes, the Soviets had teenagers out there by the end. But my point was that it didn't seem to have a particularly deleterious effect there.

But today the military commanders know exactly what it takes to form a tight, well-oiled machine and until we make a decision one way or the other - women are totally equal and deserve to be fighting and dying on the front lines or they can't handle the requirements and need to be pulled back to serve as logistical support in the rear - we are going to have the occasional incident where one female soldier gets into trouble and a bunch of guys get killed because they were trying to rescue her from peril.

I concur, here. How boring of me.

So, the draft: valuable source of national cohesion (bring it back!) or intolerable intrusion on individual liberty (don't bring it back!)?

Discuss.

 

[Ekserb]

Dude, absolutely not.

As an aside, how did you feel about the motto changing to "An Army of One" supposedly to appeal to the individual? What did it used to be again? I forget, but didn't it adhere to a more collectivist philosophy?

I think it was "Be All You Can Be" before the "Army of One" campaign. I happen to think the BAYCB slogan was better, but they had to make a change to get the numbers up, and "An Army of One" was the best they could do.(?)

First of all, there is no "One" in the Army. You are not an individual, you are a cog on a very big wheel. While the leaders would like to have soldiers that can make decisions on the spot without always having to ask permission, they also want their soldiers to ask permission before making too many decisions. Certain units have highly trained and specialized personnel and in some cases those units are allowed to make very high-level choices based on the mission as things come up. That's rare, though.

 

[scotgray]

hi?

I want to vent because this is the safest way for me to do so.

I am 42 and married 13 years with 2 kids that I adore and yet I feel as if I am the loneliest man on Earth. I live in a state of nothing. When I first got married, I was built pretty good. I had decent abs, broad shoulders, a twinkle in my eye, and a good attitude. I'm slightly overweight, I don't feel the urge to stand tall, my eyes seem blank and I exist. I discovered shortly after my first son was born that my wife married me because she felt bad for me. Before I met her, I was dating 3 women at once, and 2 knew each other. I've lived hearing that I couldn't do any better and I don't want to believe that. The only sex I have is the interaction I have with Literotica and myself. I have a good job and live in the Seacoast of NH

 

[bluebell]

Frequent Flyer

First of all, there is no "One" in the Army. You are not an individual, you are a cog on a very big wheel.

That's exactly what I've always believed about the armed forces, and I have to say that the new slogan seems completely contrary to everything the army actually is. So they're trying to appeal to the individual. Well, am I the only one who thinks that if I were going to enlist, I'd want to have the collective group feeling? The whole point, as Ekserb already pointed out, is that it's a core effort.

Do I want to be an individual with regards to my clothing choices?
Yeah- don't want to be wearing the same sweater as someone else (god forbid ).
Do I want to have an individual taste in movies and books and music?
Yeah.
Do I want to feel like an individual in battle with bullets and bombs and a hundred other atrocities waiting to take me out?
Pretty sure I don't.

I mean, I get what they're trying to do with the advertising, but it just always seems a little bit off.

By the way, I'm realizing while posting this that the heat of the discussion has probably vaporized and you'll all be reading this going, "great, who cares?"
I always seem to lurk in about a half an hour too late.
Botheration.

 

[monique1971]

I want to vent because this is the safest way for me to do so.

I am 42 and married 13 years with 2 kids that I adore and yet I feel as if I am the loneliest man on Earth. I live in a state of nothing. When I first got married, I was built pretty good. I had decent abs, broad shoulders, a twinkle in my eye, and a good attitude. I'm slightly overweight, I don't feel the urge to stand tall, my eyes seem blank and I exist. I discovered shortly after my first son was born that my wife married me because she felt bad for me. Before I met her, I was dating 3 women at once, and 2 knew each other. I've lived hearing that I couldn't do any better and I don't want to believe that. The only sex I have is the interaction I have with Literotica and myself. I have a good job and live in the Seacoast of NH

If you don't want to believe that you can't do better, then don't believe it. You have a choice as to what you believe about yourself.

This is going to sound inane, like I'm just throwing you some BS advice, but have you considered counseling? Someone who's eyes are blank needs more help than a stranger on Lit can offer.

 

[Lorali82]

That's exactly what I've always believed about the armed forces, and I have to say that the new slogan seems completely contrary to everything the army actually is. So they're trying to appeal to the individual. Well, am I the only one who thinks that if I were going to enlist, I'd want to have the collective group feeling? The whole point, as Ekserb already pointed out, is that it's a core effort.

Do I want to be an individual with regards to my clothing choices?
Yeah- don't want to be wearing the same sweater as someone else (god forbid ).
Do I want to have an individual taste in movies and books and music?
Yeah.
Do I want to feel like an individual in battle with bullets and bombs and a hundred other atrocities waiting to take me out?
Pretty sure I don't.

I mean, I get what they're trying to do with the advertising, but it just always seems a little bit off.

By the way, I'm realizing while posting this that the heat of the discussion has probably vaporized and you'll all be reading this going, "great, who cares?"
I always seem to lurk in about a half an hour too late.
Botheration.

It's funny, when I first heard the slogan I thought they were referring to the army as a united force operating as a whole unified front, which makes sense. Then I come to find out that, no, they mean you, you yourself can individually become a combat machine. And I was like, wtf???

Did this happen to anybody else?

 

[ShinigamiSama]

It's funny, when I first heard the slogan I thought they were referring to the army as a united force operating as a whole unified front, which makes sense. Then I come to find out that, no, they mean you, you yourself can individually become a combat machine. And I was like, wtf???

Did this happen to anybody else?

I chalked it up to the general population is ignorant enough to beleave almost anything an ad on TV says

 

[bluebell]

Um, yeah.

It's funny, when I first heard the slogan I thought they were referring to the army as a united force operating as a whole unified front, which makes sense. Then I come to find out that, no, they mean you, you yourself can individually become a combat machine. And I was like, wtf???

Preach it, sister suffragette.

 

[Ekserb]

That's exactly what I've always believed about the armed forces, and I have to say that the new slogan seems completely contrary to everything the army actually is. So they're trying to appeal to the individual. Well, am I the only one who thinks that if I were going to enlist, I'd want to have the collective group feeling? The whole point, as Ekserb already pointed out, is that it's a core effort.

I mean, I get what they're trying to do with the advertising, but it just always seems a little bit off.

I thought they were trying to get the new recruits to believe they were all going to be in the Special Forces or possibly Delta Force and were thus going to have a lot more freedom to do things as part of a very, very small team.

The truth is, most of the infantry units are at least a hundred guys (company-level units) and they spend a lot of time cleaning their weapons in between training exercises. It's only when you get into higher levels of command (or specialized job descriptions like mine) that you get to operate as more of an individual, but they can't very well advertise the position of Blackhawk pilot because there just aren't that many slots available, and, frankly, not that many people who can do the job.

I can hear the Army recruiter saying to the new guy who walks in off the street: "Are you ready to be an 'Army of One?'" "Yes, I am!" "Good for you, son! Sign here, then get in line." (The military is all about waiting in line.)

What they don't tell you is that you still have an out if you find that the Army isn't a good fit for you. During your first six months if you find that you simply can't live the Army way, you can get out. I think it was termed "Failure to adapt to Army regulations" or something. Of course, it's not an Honorable Discharge, it's called a General Discharge and if you try to write that on any future job application they're going to want to know what that means. You'll have to tell them that you didn't want to get up early or be told what to do or whatever, not something a prospective employer wants to hear. The best thing you can write on any application is that you were Honorably Discharged from the military - employers love that.

 

[desired_tempest]

I chalked it up to the general population is ignorant enough to beleave almost anything an ad on TV says

is that why they had a pour of guys go into the docs to get male enhancment pills?

 

[desired_tempest]

It's funny, when I first heard the slogan I thought they were referring to the army as a united force operating as a whole unified front, which makes sense. Then I come to find out that, no, they mean you, you yourself can individually become a combat machine. And I was like, wtf???

Did this happen to anybody else?

i havent heard that slogan yet...i have heard In the Army National Guard, You Can...

 

[bluebell]

I bought stamps with quilts on them

What they don't tell you is that you still have an out if you find that the Army isn't a good fit for you. During your first six months if you find that you simply can't live the Army way, you can get out. I think it was termed "Failure to adapt to Army regulations" or something. Of course, it's not an Honorable Discharge, it's called a General Discharge and if you try to write that on any future job application they're going to want to know what that means. You'll have to tell them that you didn't want to get up early or be told what to do or whatever, not something a prospective employer wants to hear. The best thing you can write on any application is that you were Honorably Discharged from the military - employers love that.

Ekserb, you are a very informative person. You should be special military counsel on armed forces movies where they pretend to know what they're talking about.

(just razzing you)

 

[Ekserb]

Ekserb, you are a very informative person. You should be special military counsel on armed forces movies where they pretend to know what they're talking about.

(just razzing you)

Ahhh! I enjoy a good action flick, but I have to hold my tongue during most war films because the producers obviously tried to make the movie more dramatic or move the plot along at the expense of realism. There are only a handful of movies with a military theme (or even worse, an aviation theme) that can watch and be completely enthralled. One is Bat 21 with Gene Hackman. Really good piloting scenes - made me think the actors were actually flying! Another is Blackhawk Down. That movie was as real as it gets when it comes to depicting how professional soldiers act in combat. (Funny how that movie's director Ridley Scott also made GI Jane - one of the worst offenders when it comes to military realism. What a steaming pile of shit that was.)

 

[monique1971]

I was wondering when someone would mention G.I. Jane in this thread. That movie was so bad that it was fascinating. I saw it for the first time on cable a couple of months ago and watched the whole thing, unable to tear myself away from the horror. So bad in so many ways -- indescribable, really.

There's a movie called A Midnight Clear that I thought was pretty good. It wasn't so much about combat as about the psychology of being at war. Not that I would know from personal experience, but ideally a work of art can convey to us what something is like even if we have not experienced it ourselves.

 

[Ekserb]

... ideally a work of art can convey to us what something is like even if we have not experienced it ourselves.

Only if that artwork is shooting at you will you ever know the experience of combat.

Look, I've only been shot at a couple of times and I don't pretend to know what's it's like to be in a fully involved firefight in close quarters with the enemy, but I know enough to know that no movie, book, photo, fairy tale or dream is going to approximate the experience of war.

This brings to mind the stories of actors who sometimes prepare for a role by immersing themselves in boot camp for a few weeks and then talking about it on the Tonight Show. They tell all about how hard it was and how they sometimes thought they wouldn't get through it.

Bullshit.

These fucking actors are coddled day and night to the point where they think putting gas in the car is a major achievement. The producers wanted the actors to know what it's like to go through Basic Training, but they didn't want them injured or otherwise incapacitated, so the instructors go easy on them. I mean, if Matt Damon gives the Drill Sergeant a little backtalk, nothing happens. In fact, they all have a good laugh. In real life you risk a miserable existence for the next few weeks or worse. The worst case would be getting kicked out on a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD or Big Chicken Dinner, as it's called) and then try getting a job for the rest of your life. New recruits and enlisted soldiers of all ranks actually have to worry about repercussions instead of smoking and joking with the rest of the crew on the movie set.

I hate actors. Fucking pussies.